2011 Tournament discussion (AA50-41)

So Cow, doesn’t that make you COBRA?

Hey Gargantua,

Why do you call me a Noob?  :?
Yes, this was my first game on this site.

I also play on GTO, DAAK and TripleA.

PS, i play A&A for 25 years now.

Why do you call me a Noob? 
Yes, this was my first game on this site.

I also play on GTO, DAAK and TripleA.

PS, i play A&A for 25 years now.

Exactly my point,

I watched your play style… sloppy LOL.  Hope we meet in the tournament!

Well, it would have to be in the finals.  Fat chance!

Looking forward to it hahaha.

don’t worry GI_JOE. you roll good, take advantage of that and you be fine! gogogogo super defense!

Tyzoq over Desert Journalist in 7 rounds.

http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=22594.225

Also Zhuk over DF

Is there any constraint on what types of units can be included in the bid… i.e. bombers when the bid is 12 or more?

Other sites have a restriction… I think mostly for the Soviet bomber in Bury reason…

Yea, you can get your tnps and dd in z51 sunk before you start.  8-)

@DutchmanD:

Is there any constraint on what types of units can be included in the bid… i.e. bombers when the bid is 12 or more?

Other sites have a restriction… I think mostly for the Soviet bomber in Bury reason…

Yea, you can get your tnps and dd in z51 sunk before you start.  8-)

There’s only a 57% chance of that happening.  And then you have no extra infantry to Egypt, no destroyer to 2, etc.  Japan starts with 5 transports.  Yes, they will be unable to take a money island and that’s an 8 IPC swing, but that’s again only if Russia wins this coin flip of an attack.  I’ve heard all this talk about the Bomber on Buryatia like it’s some kind of game over thing, but my opinion is that it’s an over-reaction.

You have a 29% chance of killing the destroyer and the transports surviving.
You have a 14.286% chance of getting NOTHING BUT BROWN JUNK on the Pacific floor for your 12 bid!!!

To answer your question, I never saw any rules on this site about bid restrictions other than you have to already have units there and it has to be your nation controlling the territory (No german units to Libya for example).

I would support forbidding bomber bids.  The reason is….a bid like that (bmb to Bry) doesn’t improve game quality–it makes the outcome of the game even more dependent on a dicey R1 attack.  If it succeeds it is very tough for Axis to recover, if it fails Allies have lost their bid.

Anyway, I can’t recall seeing a 12 bid on here.  Seems like a high bid for a dice game.

Just some thoughts -
@Zhukov44:

I would support forbidding bomber bids.  The reason is….a bid like that (bmb to Bry) doesn’t improve game quality–it makes the outcome of the game even more dependent on a dicey R1 attack.

The purpose of bids isn’t to improve game quality.  It’s to get two players to agree that their game is fair.  If you grant someone a 12 bid with the Allies, why should they not have the right to build a bomber on Bry and take a big chance if they want?  If you don’t want them to be able to build a bomber, then you shouldn’t let them have a bid of 12, you need to bid 11.

If it succeeds it is very tough for Axis to recover, if it fails Allies have lost their bid.

That’s what they get for taking that kind of a risk.

Anyway, I can’t recall seeing a 12 bid on here.  Seems like a high bid for a dice game.

Right.  Another reason a rule banning bomber bids is unnecessary.

Thanks for the thoughts, Zhukov.  Very interesting.

@DarthMaximus:

Quick note on round 1 games.  Obviously all are not done yet, so keep playing on.  Right now the plan is to let the games finish normally.  I guess we’ll take another look at it at the end of May.

But a note to all ongoing games.  We need to pick up the pace, myself included.   :-D

can U please explain X2

cheers :)

All games need to start moving quicker so they get finished before the end of May

@gamerman01:

Just some thoughts -
@Zhukov44:

I would support forbidding bomber bids.  The reason is….a bid like that (bmb to Bry) doesn’t improve game quality–it makes the outcome of the game even more dependent on a dicey R1 attack.

The purpose of bids isn’t to improve game quality.  It’s to get two players to agree that their game is fair.  If you grant someone a 12 bid with the Allies, why should they not have the right to build a bomber on Bry and take a big chance if they want?  If you don’t want them to be able to build a bomber, then you shouldn’t let them have a bid of 12, you need to bid 11.

If it succeeds it is very tough for Axis to recover, if it fails Allies have lost their bid.

That’s what they get for taking that kind of a risk.

Anyway, I can’t recall seeing a 12 bid on here.  Seems like a high bid for a dice game.

Right.  Another reason a rule banning bomber bids is unnecessary.

Thanks for the thoughts, Zhukov.  Very interesting.

I agree with Zhukov and disagree with the notion that the quality of the game should not be a goal of the bid. As I said, other sites have the restriction for the “quality of gameplay” reason…

That being said, there are always two factions in Axis and Allies. The Strategists and the Gamers. Strategists tend to favor a stratgey based game that plays more like chess and less like Risk or Yatzee, i.e. they wish to remove the luck where possible as Strategists tend to feel that “luck swings” take away from the game and don’t make it better. Strategists rarely play tech games, for example.  They luck involved with acquiring tech and then how instantly some tach can be utilized seems to “ruin” the match for a Strategist.

Gamers, on the other hand embrace the luck portion of the game, feeling that it is integral. The idea of a LowLuck game of Axis and Allies repulses them and they feel that playing with reduced chance via the dice bastardizes the game. The idea that the game should play more like a chess match is just silly to a Gamer and you often hear a Gamer exclaim that war is unpredictable and various outcomes make the game even more realistic.

So, which are you fellow player? Everyone is more in one camp than the other. Zhuk and I are Stategists, Gamerman is a Gamer (apply named).  There is no wrong or right way to be, it’s just personal preference.

@DutchmanD:

@gamerman01:

Just some thoughts -
@Zhukov44:

I would support forbidding bomber bids.  The reason is….a bid like that (bmb to Bry) doesn’t improve game quality–it makes the outcome of the game even more dependent on a dicey R1 attack.

The purpose of bids isn’t to improve game quality.  It’s to get two players to agree that their game is fair.  If you grant someone a 12 bid with the Allies, why should they not have the right to build a bomber on Bry and take a big chance if they want?  If you don’t want them to be able to build a bomber, then you shouldn’t let them have a bid of 12, you need to bid 11.

If it succeeds it is very tough for Axis to recover, if it fails Allies have lost their bid.

That’s what they get for taking that kind of a risk.

Anyway, I can’t recall seeing a 12 bid on here.  Seems like a high bid for a dice game.

Right.  Another reason a rule banning bomber bids is unnecessary.

Thanks for the thoughts, Zhukov.  Very interesting.

I agree with Zhukov and disagree with the notion that the quality of the game should not be a goal of the bid. As I said, other sites have the restriction for the “quality of gameplay” reason…

That being said, there are always two factions in Axis and Allies. The Strategists and the Gamers. Strategists tend to favor a stratgey based game that plays more like chess and less like Risk or Yatzee, i.e. they wish to remove the luck where possible as Strategists tend to feel that “luck swings” take away from the game and don’t make it better. Strategists rarely play tech games, for example.  They luck involved with acquiring tech and then how instantly some tach can be utilized seems to “ruin” the match for a Strategist.

Gamers, on the other hand embrace the luck portion of the game, feeling that it is integral. The idea of a LowLuck game of Axis and Allies repulses them and they feel that playing with reduced chance via the dice bastardizes the game. The idea that the game should play more like a chess match is just silly to a Gamer and you often hear a Gamer exclaim that war is unpredictable and various outcomes make the game even more realistic.

So, which are you fellow player? Everyone is more in one camp than the other. Zhuk and I are Stategists, Gamerman is a Gamer (apply named).  There is no wrong or right way to be, it’s just personal preference.

i’m right in the middle, and that’s why i now think no-tech AA50 is the best game there is.

I believe strategy is the key to winning but having tech and dice symbolizes the brilliant generals, clever scientists and the difference between recruits and veterans. So I would say If I had to choose a camp I would choose Gamer 90/100 times because of the changes in the game one battle or one round can make. However The reasons I have stated also makes me want to choose to be a strategist because of the annoying results which throw a perfect shuck or an invincible strategy to get defeated because of 0 hits on attack in an Amphib or the 50/100 hits I faced as Germany in a recent face to face revised game when Russia had turled from round 1 and built a 100 strong Infantry. I went on to lose that game. (My first lose for over a year in Face to face revised)

But what does this mean to you fellow AAA gamer??? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. It is just my opinion. To some it could be the buildings of a gaming ideology and to others I could be worth as much as toilet paper. But when deciding which road to go down that of a strategist or a gamer you must recognize peoples opinion because inside each person’s opinion there will be a grain of truth.

And now back to the topic of unlimited bids. I believe that if we accept Bomber bids eventually things will even themselves out. I.E. for all the times you face the Bry bomber you will have it or it will fail on it’s quest and the bid is down the drain. So I believe that bids should be unlimited (although this may be the gamer in me and tomorrow when I begin to think like a strategist I will think what I have written is rubbish) because limiting bids of bmrs could lead us to banning bids in other places liking banning a soviet AC because it could be seen as a wasted bid and could ruin the game. As I said before this is just my popinion take from it what you will.

I’m enjoying the discussion